Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS

[catsmate]

When you find any new evidence in your cited article to further support the truthfulness beyond what was offered in the original story, be sure to let me know.


Please, what facts might you be referring to?

Utterly pathetic.
Your inability to accept the reality of the new anti-female regime in the USA doesn't alter it's reality in the slightest.

 

[Stacyhs]

Did you notice the bit in my post where I said lots of those children died?

I have a teaching credential in history and passed my 3 hr. final exam in the 97th percentile and I say your post was historically ignorant because it was.

Yes, I noticed it but that was not the point of your post at all which was "From an economic standpoint, it's interesting how a modern, middle class person can look at having children as an economic catastrophe, where as a medieval peasant could afford to keep pushing out children (all be it with only half of them surviving to adulthood)."
The highlighted is merely an acknowledgment that many children died but it does not change what your main point was: it wasn't an economic hardship on women to keep having children. That is patently false.

Also, do you have a non-****** article backing up your claim? That is a blog post, by somebody saying they did some research as an undergraduate 46 years ago that indicated nutrition in some parts of the middle ages wasn't great. Was there not an old geocities site you could link to?

Despite your attempt to discredit my source as a 'blog', the writer was referring to his senior thesis. You know, that thing a graduating senior has to write and present to professors as evidence of their mastery of their major. Do you think malnutrition in the MIddle Ages has changed in the last 46 years? As the author included in his 'blog', he "was particularly interested in a recent study of bones from medieval London (National Geographic, Feb 2016, p. 97):

Isotope and bone analysis from a collection of 14th- and 15-th century skeletons unearthed during an excavation at Charterhouse Square paint a harrowing picture of life in medieval London. Many showed signs of malnutrition, and one in six suffered from rickets. Severe dental problems and tooth abscesses were also common, as was a high rate of back injuries and muscle strains from heavy labor. People from the later period in the 1400s, had disturbingly high rates of upper body injuries, possibly consistent with violent altercations that resulted from a breakdown in law and order in the wake of the plague.

This backs up exactly what I said.

Typical numbers for infant mortality would have been something like 20% back then. Children not making it past their first birthday was not a significant barrier to larger families than we have today.

The size of families was not determined by infant deaths alone but by all child deaths which was about 50%:

"Many researchers have independently studied mortality rates for children in the past: in different societies, locations, and historical periods. The average across a large number of historical studies suggests that in the past around one-quarter of infants died in their first year of life and around half of all children died before they reached the end of puberty."

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
AND

Estimates of infant and child mortality are often elusive in the Middle Ages. When they are available, they range from 30% to 50% of births, depending on the context and the socio-economic circumstances of families. Fertility patterns are even more difficult to ascertain. What is clear, however, is that both rates varied depending on a number of factors. Of these, wealth was the most important since it directly impacted the ability of individuals to properly feed their children and to have access to health practitioners. This, in turn, largely determined their fertility and life expectancy.

https://www.medievalists.net/2021/06/large-medieval-peasant-families/

The whole thing varies around hugely depending on what period you are talking about. During the black death? During a famine? During the mini-ice age? Very clearly they must have had significantly larger families than we have today, because civilisation survived the middle ages. Your average medieval family had above replacement rates of children surviving into adulthood. Given that, they were clearly having at least 4 or 5 children per family. So, we go back to the issue that today middle class people are not having children because they can not afford it, but in medieval Europe peasants were having lots of children.

False:

...although it is true that death did take a dramatic toll on medieval children, families were, from the beginning of the medieval era, smaller than we had once thought.

In rural England, between the twelfth century and the Black Death, the average number of children who survived infancy in poor families was slightly below two. This average improved to over two surviving children in landowning peasant families, and climbed to as high as five among the wealthiest noble households. The situation was similar in the southern French diocese of Maguelone in the late Middle Ages, where peasant families had on average two living children at the time they made their wills, while wealthy families counted an average of three.

In the rural areas of the diocese of Maguelone, Languedoc, between c. 1325 and the outbreak of the first plague epidemic, testators had on average 2.8 live children. Between 1350 and 1375, the average dropped to 1.9 and continued to decrease, reaching a low of 1.4 children per testator between 1400 and 1424. Fortunately, families soon began to expand, as Western European sources suggest that there was a “baby boom” in the fifteenth century. The threshold for population renewal (two children per couple) was thus reached by the mid-fifteenth century.

So, not the large families you claim.

Look, we don't all have access to the rememberings of undergraduates from 46 years ago. Somehow I had missed that guys wordpress blog. Through the midwit haze that your post fogs up the facts with, there is certainly truth that the social environment was different in the middle ages.

Again, your attempt to dismiss my source fails. As does your ad hominem. I'd say my facts are backed up with....facts. Yours are not.

Your version of it is simplistic, but attitudes to sex, and children, and the "good life" were different.

LOL! Speaking of a 'midwit haze' what the hell does that have to do with your claim that people 'pushed out children' like crazy and didn't find it an economic burden?

The root difference between then and now in terms of how many children people are having is the society, and it's beliefs and incentives. You list some of the steps that society took that clearly encouraged children in the middle ages, today we incentivise very different behaviours that encourage people to delay having children, or not have them at all. Today we live in a society that prioritises the individual, so even though people aren't going to starve they feel they don't have enough money to have children. In the middle ages peoples lives were much more marginal, but they had lots of children.

OMG. The list I provided weren't 'encouragements' to have children! They are what prevented women from having control over their own bodies!
Women never wanted to be breeding machines but that was the major role society...controlled by MEN...gave them because it wasn't MEN who were dying from pregnancy, in childbirth or from post partum infections. Childbirth was the leading cause of death in women in the middle ages.

Today we give women choices...or at least we did until this latest SC debacle. Historically, women had very little control over anything in their lives because they were legally the property of men in their lives. Hell, rape was seen as a property crime against a woman's husband or father.

Can we knock off the throwing sass at one another, and just talk about the issues in the thread?

I said your post was historically ignorant...as in uninformed. I didn't say stupid. It was you who chose to use the term "midwit" toward me.

Now we've thrown sass at one another, can we just argue about the topic please? I've read plenty of history. Maybe I interpret it differently to you? Any errors I make are not for lack of a general knowledge of the past.

AS the saying goes: you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your post was, and is, historically incorrect.

 

[catsmate]

This is pretty common. Just yesterday I was discussing covid with someone and first they claimed the vaccines made your immune system worse and so you're more likely to die or have severe symptoms from covid if you get the shot.

I told them the data shows the exact opposite and anyone could find this info with relative ease.

They said prove it, cite a source. So I did and also gave them the summary of the findings because it's not like they're going to actually read it.

Suddenly their argument changed to "imagine caring if 2 people die of covid instead of 1.

It's just sad.

Some Republicans/anti-abortion believers have noticed the effects of their insanity and are uncomfortable with the new reality of dead women. Hence the need to deny it's truth and the desperate lengths they go to.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

Well said.
A little OT but that mentality is the same sort that denies the reality of the dangers of carrying a pregnancy to term.

 

[Warp12]

Well said.
A little OT but that mentality is the same sort that denies the reality of the dangers of carrying a pregnancy to term.

For the US:

The maternal mortality rate for 2020 was 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births compared with a rate of 20.1 in 2019

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hesta...t=In 2020, 861 women were,20.1 in 2019 (Table).


What is the fetal mortality rate for abortion?

 

[johnny karate]

This assertion sounds more idiotic every time I hear it.

Conservatives certainly don’t care about children or value life. This is easily observable in pretty much every other policy position that they have.

Furthermore, they also have policy positions that clearly indicate they want to punish any form of sex or sexuality of which they disapprove.

These dots barely need connecting.

 

[Dumb All Over]

You ask for sources. But when two doctors get cited as sources you pretend the response is an appeal to authority debate trick.

Most certainly Dr. Caitlin Bernard was cited as a source for the story. Who is the second doctor you mention as being a cited source for the story?

But there's a chance you are a Russian Paid troll sent here to destroy faith in America's free press.

Prove you are not. . .see how easy that was.

Вы меня разгадали! Я русский платный тролль, присланный сюда, чтобы разрушить веру в свободную прессу Америки.

 

[arayder]

When you find solid evidence that the story is faked let us know, Dumb.

A very reasonable request. I shall do so.

Off topic: Would you please address me by my forum name, Dumb All Over? You may even call me by the initials DAO.

Edited by jimbob: 

it is uncivil and a Rule 0/12 violation to not address members by their full names when asked

It would be interesting to see how journalists who have written phony stories in the past got caught.

This case, if it's a phony story, would be interesting because there are two authors, a named doctor and the unnamed doctor in Ohio ("insiders" probably know who this doctor is) who have to have gone along with the ruse.

In addition the newspaper and the newspaper editor have their reputations riding on truthful stories. My guess is they'd fess up to doing poor supervision (as opposed to outright lying) if the story gets revealed as a fake.

So there are plenty of people to roll over on Rudavsky and Fradette.

 

[johnny karate]

I'll add you to the list of those comfortable using such language to describe the unborn.

Someone on record calling murder victims scumbags who earned their fate and not caring if poor people die due to lack of access to healthcare should probably spare the rest of us their hollow moralizing.

 

[Stacyhs]

The story is pure BS.

You have no evidence of that. What you want is for it to false. Or do you think 10 year old girls can't get pregnant? Hint: a girl can get pregnant once she has her first period.

Girls may start ovulating and menstruating as early as age 9, though the average is around 12 to 13. (Some studies suggest that the average age of first menstruation is dropping, but the data is not conclusive.) Just because a girl can get pregnant, though, doesn't mean she can safely deliver a baby. The pelvis does not fully widen until the late teens, meaning that young girls may not be able to push the baby through the birth canal.

A 10-year-old girl in Colombia recently gave birth via caesarian section, placing her among the youngest mothers in the world. Though the girl is now recovering, her case highlights the dangers of pregnancy before maturity, doctors say.

https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html

Here's a list of very young girls giving birth. And most of them were due to incest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...n gave birth to,2 months in Bristol, Virginia.

 

[kookbreaker]

Asking the name of the referring doctor is basically asking to doom the girl.

 

[arayder]

Most certainly Dr. Caitlin Bernard was cited as a source for the story. Who is the second doctor you mention as being a cited source for the story?

"Source" may not be he right word on my part.

The whole thing seems to have started when an unnamed doctor from Ohio called Bernard about the case.

As I said my guess is that Rudavsky and Fradette know who that doctor is and just aren't revealing the name.

Asking the name of the referring doctor is basically asking to doom the girl.

Good point.

 

[johnny karate]

That remains to be seen. I wouldn't consider it anything to be proud of, however.

You can call it whatever you like, but it is ultimately a developing human.

The phony attempt at conveying empathy from someone who has demonstrated over and over again how little they value human life isn’t remotely believable.

And of course this is the entire conservative approach to the abortion issue in a nutshell: Disingenuous moral posturing and expecting everyone else to not notice everything they do and say that demonstrates how amoral they are.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.
.

Why not? Is the child any less a child in your eyes? Is it less deserving of life in your eyes? When you say a child that is the result of incest is not equally a person, then you are discrediting your own position.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Okay no first names, Mr. Over.

I politely asked that you address me by my forum name, Dumb All Over. Would you please?

 

[Warp12]

Why not? Is the child any less a child in your eyes? Is it less deserving of life in your eyes? When you say a child that is the result of incest is not equally a person, then you are discrediting your own position.

I never said that.

And did you forget that I was not against Roe in the first place, nor did I expect it to be overturned?

But, I can see why some conservatives say no exceptions for rape or incest...because liberals practically demand it. There is practically no downside, as you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Or do you think 10 year old girls can't get pregnant?

I haven't said that and I don't think that.

 

[arayder]

But, I can see why some conservatives say no exceptions for rape or incest...because liberals practically demand it. There is practically no downside, as you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.

It's not a game.

 

[Stacyhs]

So, now we have people here on the forum who consider the unborn on par with both parasites and viruses. Lovely.

Yea! You finally got to bring that up again! Bet that made your day!
Even if you're completely misrepresenting how both terms were being used. Neither Kookbreaker nor I put 'the unborn' on a par with parasites or viruses. The fact that we pointed out two scientific facts matters not to you as long as you can twist it to your agenda. You continue to be dishonest.

 

[Warp12]

It's not a game.

Liberals are surely aware of that now.